WASHINGTON — In a 7-2 decision June 4, the Supreme Court sided with a Colorado baker in a case that put anti-discrimination laws up against freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the
Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated the Constitution's protection of
religious freedom in its ruling against the baker, who refused to make a
wedding cake for the same-sex couple.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Kennedy noted the case had a limited scope, writing that the
issue "must await further elaboration." Across the country, appeals
in similar cases are pending, including another case at the Supreme Court from
a florist who didn't want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of
Louisville, chairman of the Committee for Religious Liberty, Archbishop Charles
J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., of Philadelphia, chairman of the Committee on Laity,
Marriage, Family Life and Youth, and Bishop James D. Conley of Lincoln, chairman of the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage of
the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), issued the following
joint statement:

“Today’s decision confirms that
people of faith should not suffer discrimination on account of their deeply
held religious beliefs, but instead should be respected by government
officials. This extends to creative professionals, such as Jack Phillips, who
seek to serve the Lord in every aspect of their daily lives. In a pluralistic
society like ours, true tolerance allows people with different viewpoints to be
free to live out their beliefs, even if those beliefs are unpopular with the
government.”

The ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v.
Colorado Civil Rights Commission stems from the case argued before the
court last December from an incident in 2012 when Charlie Craig and David
Mullins asked the Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, to make a cake for their
wedding reception. Phillips refused, saying his religious beliefs would not
allow him to create a cake honoring their marriage.

The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights
Commission, which decided the baker's action violated state law. The decision
was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals. The Colorado Supreme Court
wouldn't take the case, letting the ruling stand. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed
to hear the case.

During oral arguments at the high court, many questions came up
about what constituted speech, since the baker claimed he should have freedom
of speech protection.

The ruling's opinion honed in on the argument of free speech and
religious neutrality, saying the baker's refusal was based on "sincere
religious beliefs and convictions" and when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission
considered this case, the court said, "it did not do so with the religious
neutrality that the Constitution requires."

The court opinion also noted the delicate balance at stake in
this case, saying: "Our society has come to the recognition that gay
persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in
dignity and worth. For that reason, the laws and the Constitution can, and in
some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The
exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight
and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical
objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected
forms of expression."

But delving further, the court deemed the specific cake in
question was an artistic creation, not just a baked good. It said, "If a
baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a
different matter," noting that the state would have a strong case that
this would be a denial of goods and services going beyond protected rights of a
baker.

Here, the court said the issue was the baker's argument that he
"had to use his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding
endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation."

The court opinion goes on to say that as Phillips' contention
"has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his
deep and sincere religious beliefs. In this context the baker likely found it
difficult to find a line where the customers' rights to goods and services
became a demand for him to exercise the right of his own personal expression
for their message, a message he could not express in a way consistent with his
religious beliefs."

Ashley McGuire, senior fellow with the Catholic Association, a group that emphasizes religious freedom, described the court's ruling as a "clear win for religious liberty and expression."

In other immediate reaction: Kristen Waggoner, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Phillips, praised the court for showing that "government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society."

Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, stressed the narrowness of the court's opinion, emphasizing that it was based on "concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops filed a friend-of-the
court brief in support of the baker, joined by the Colorado Catholic
Conference, Catholic Bar Association, Catholic Medical Association, National
Association of Catholic Nurses-USA and National Catholic Bioethics Center.

After oral arguments were presented late last year in this case,
the chairmen of three USCCB committees issued a statement saying: "America
has the ability to serve every person while making room for valid conscientious
objection."

The committees' statement also said it hoped the court would
continue to "preserve the ability of people to live out their faith in
daily life, regardless of their occupation," noting that artists
"deserve to have the freedom to express ideas — or to decline to create
certain messages — in accordance with their deeply held beliefs."